Navy C-2 Greyhounds in Demand
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Despite being at the end of its operational life the Navy still needs the old Greyhound.
Every Monday at 8PM ET, Mover (F-16, F/A-18, T-38, 737, helicopter pilot, author, cop, and wanna be race car driver) and Gonky (F/A-18, T-38, A320, dirt bike racer, author, and awesome dad) discuss everything from aviation to racing to life and anything in between.
Send your voice message for the show: podcasters.spo...
Looking for a good book? www.cwlemoine.com
Kids Coloring and Activity Books!
www.amazon.com...
Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: streamyard.com...
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.
Just weld some hooks on a bunch of C-130s, you're welcome Navy.
Admirals don't get cushy sinecures after retirement (from the military industrial complex) if you do things like that which is what is best for america and keep producing an old and relatively inexpensive system like the c-2. Our system is busted. osprey has neither the range nor capacity of the c-2
The Osprey has a bunch of advantages. Range is not that bad, and it can do aerial refueling (although there was a test of a C-2 refueling probe). There's also flexibility to use them on landing ships for deliveries, although the Marines already have those. Also carrying external loads like a heavy lift helicopter.
I heard the Marines and Air Force were also encouraging this because they thought it would bring down the per unit cost.
I don't think they were going to bring a 30+ year old production line back, but Northrup Grumman was talking about modifications and overhauls to the existing C-2 fleet.
@@ypw510the c-2 obviously could have been fitted for refueling. also the ch-53 line of helicopters can carry external loads like the Osprey but heavier loads for longer duration and more marins and also can land in many more situations. Nothing was broke, but you don't get rich not fixing anything in government work so it got fixed and screwed up.
@@posmoo9790
That's a helicopter though, which is something that's never going to be in the US Navy inventory.
What I don’t understand is why they just don’t have the Navy’s MH-53 community or the Marine Corps CH-53E / CH-53K help out with some of the downed Osprey’s work, I think that would be a healthier alternative than just putting all that stress on the last few remaining C-2 Greyhound fleet He would probably have to retest a few amphibious readiness groups To sale with carrier test forces, but the fact that 53s can refuel and flight they can essentially take care of the same tasks as the Grayhoundss
Keep those Grumman Iron Works planes flying. I love it.
Trying to replace the greyhound with a type confused fling wing is just negligent. They are cheap to buy and operate (all things relative). They Have tiny hangar profiles (Grumman stow wings rule!). I could go on.
Go on... Can they carry a spare jet engine?
@reubensandwich9249 Isn't that the problem with the CV-22?
It can't fit a F-35 engine
@@barrymccockiner6641 No it's the other way around. Only the CV-22 can carry around the F-35 engine
@@barrymccockiner6641 It's one of the reasons they want to move away from the c-2. The CMV-22B did deliver an F-135 engine in 2021 according to Naval News.
Frankly, the head trauma incident on the carrier with the Osprey ecav is what sold me on it.
@@acarrillo8277 Sling load or inside?
I know there are lots of logistics reasons for having as few different types of aircraft as possible, but it seems to me that when you rely on a single type you end up being dependent on aircraft not having fleet wide problems, and new types almost always have that.
This is a new version but this problem goes back to the first Ospreys in the early 80's. Twin lifting props are unstable for carrier landings 3 identical landing crashes in 6 months (2 in one week) while landing on the corner of a flight deck, when one prop gains extra lift from the deck and the other is still over the ocean it suddenly tries to corkscrew without room or time for even the differential to adjust. Just start making parts again for the old stuff and order a new wing of C2s until they build something that works.
Unfortunately that squadron has been scrounging and cannibalising for years.
As innovative and valuable as the Osprey >could be< I suspect that the Osprey will be destined for a very short career for the COD role. That being said - How long will it take the Navy to develop a replacement platform? Could the basic Greyhound design be updated and improved upon to meet the future needs of the Navy? What changes and improvements would provide a better and even more reliable plane for the COD role? I just don't see the Osprey as a reliable long-term solution for the Navy's COD needs. Selecting it was a bold move, but it truly looks like the V-22 in any form or even an updated tilt-rotor is going to provide what the Navy needs.
I think they wouldn't have to develop a whole new platform for the most part. Northrop-Grumman already proposed updating the C-2 with the wings, engine, and glass cockpit of the E-2 which is somehow still in production. However just like the Airforce killing off the A-10 in spite of laws passed I imagine that the navy would do the same for the C-2 and potential traditional C-2 replacement program.
Personally I'd design a new cargo and tail section to allow it to hold the F-35's engine.
While I'm generally anti-war, it usually takes wars to get rid of the bullshit, and the Navy has a lot of bullshit going on that'll likely cost a lot of Sailors' lives before they mostly get their shit together.
The S-3 was in the running against the Osprey and it had the ability except when it came to a certain jet engine.
Bring back the Provider!
Make C-130 COD great again.
They may have to. At some point it might be the C-130 or nothing at all.
Technically, you can land a C-130 on a carrier, but the deck has to be mostly clear. JATO units and/or booster engines wouldn't hurt either. Just run some C-130Js off the line with a shortened fuselage and add a drag chute or reverse the props you might have something. Lockheed still know how to grease congress?
What parts compatibility is there between the E-2 and C-2? Phasing out the C-2 because it's aging but keeping the aging (but upgraded) E-2s is faulty logic. Just upgrade the C-2s as well. The V-22 as COD replacement sounds like some industry CEO's personal kickback rather than a legitimate replacement.
They have landed C-130 on a carrier.... Jus' sayin'...
And the Navy's Blue angels use one with rockets to aid take off for carrier take off. The C-130 is just too big for normal carrier ops. (don't fit on the lifts to move to the hanger decks for one, blocking flight deck space)
@@charlesmaurer6214
Didn't they note that the C-2 never stayed overnight? I don't think there's any need for stowing away anything in the COD mission. It's just daytime landings and takeoffs, where I doubt it really needs to go to the hangar deck unless there's something that needs repair.
But then again I can't see the C-130 being used like that. I understand they did a lot of crazy stuff to get it to land and take off from a carrier.
@@charlesmaurer6214 The JATO used by the various C-130s stopped when the company that made the bottles went away. As far as the C-130, they used the entire deck for the takeoff but did not use the JATO.
@@ypw510 Like the Doolittle raid it limits the carrier until it leaves the deck. The raid in WWII left the carrier almost sitting duck until those bombers got off. They launched early at the first sign of the enemy making the bomb run as much of a one way mission as the Jap Kamikaze ones.
@@ypw510 The Greyhound was assigned 2 per carrier for years with 2 E2 Hawkeyes (Radar plane on same base design) for decades as part of standard equipment. In practice they tended to spend more time in the air than on ship on both designs because one flew expanded radar for the fleet and the other was kept busy playing taxi/fedex for the carrier and escorts. They need a spare on both so 2 per carrier but were in constant use at sea.
who could have seen that comin...tilt rotor airplane braking all the time...is it a plane is it a helo..it doesn't even know... typical govt .... F up....
Another new vs old. The A-6F Intruder II would have been able to carry the same 18,000 load (of whatever is needed) as a Super Hornet but for nearly twice the range. A package of 6-10 A-6Fs with 2 having some refueling load, escorted with a couple of F-35s (refueled as needed by A-6F) would have been great at supporting Taiwan while keeping the carrier safe. They could have been the Navy's B-52 bomb/missile truck. (And shared the GE F404, but no A/B.)
It's a real shame the Navy never received a next generation C-2 airplane. The Navy tapping the V-22 to be the COD replacement because it can carry an F-35 engine internally (whereas the C-2 cannot) was post-hoc reasoning, at best. The fact of the matter, with the Osprey being a joint program and all, is the Navy was ALWAYS on the hook to procure X number of V-22s. My fellow ASOs can still see a drop-drown option for SV-22 in the T/M/S selector for mishap reports. Points to it being an S-3 replacement originally. But anyway, V-22 = great for what the Marine Corps does. Navy = kinda just the least worst option available today.
It's tryly sad when functionality has been replaced with profiteering from beltway side hustles. The C-2 should hace been right there with the E-2 as an irreplaceable asset worthy of upgrades to a C-2B. (Opinion)
The C-2 aren't at their service life, they use the same Wings n center wing as the E-2 attached by 4 Bolt all the C-2\s had Mods done to strengthen the Center wings within the last 5 years we did the mods just so they could fly them to Arizonan... the v-22 was forced on the navy to bring the unit cost down for the marines.... the C-2 fuselage is larger than v-22 it can hold a F-35 engine just can't take it to the boat without a serious reengineering of the deck of the aircraft the C-2 could be fitted with IFR just like the E-2D...
Any time the pentagon makes a decision on a weapons platform it’s all about $$$$. It’s never about what’s best for the operation or the operators. There are some small exceptions, see #C-130. 😜👍
Agree with Gronky, I thought the idea of replacing the C-2 with the Osprey was stupid. A simple upgraded design based on the existing C-2 with better range, load capacity, speed, durability and reliability makes more sense than a highly complex VTOL machine with a reputation for killing Marines. It seems to me in the logistics role one of the most important features of a supply aircraft would be reliability.
And any morsel of fuxking common sense is too "out the door"...
Cronyism and sheer incompetence is at the hart here.
We are Seriously looking at peer to peer war soon and this shxt is going on.
Bring out the bone yard C2's and double these aircraft numbers right NOW.
Lead by idiots.
😑🤭
novel concept, build new C2, updated donks and avionics. Simples
Predicting the failure of the Osprey would seem to be the easiest thing in the world. It's pure negligence not to have planned for that failure.
There isn't a government funded entity that's not looking for ways to spend more money to justify budget increases. The Osprey is the child of pure politics. Like the line from the movie "Contact", "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the price?"
No. Ospreys were the result of the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission. CH-53s weren't fast enough with enough range. Remember, the mission turned into a debacle at a refueling base in the Iranian desert.
Now, the COD being replaced by the Osprey was a bad idea.
@@mcblaze1968 Fair enough. Of course given the 30 minute restriction on flight time, the v22's designed 1,000 mile range is substantially less than the CH-53. Considering the long history of problems with the Osprey, from it's very beginning, one has to wonder why the program wasn't killed earlier.
Shitcan the Osprey and upgrade the C2.
I supposed they could pull some C-2s out of the boneyard.
Where’s Wombat…? He’d have a fair bit to say on this!
didn't we give some c-2s to france?
How about making the old C-2s into KC-2s, and free up some SuperHornets?
Good idea...but only problem ...you still need to scrounge for old plane technology parts of C-2. From what Mover and Gonky are saying, sounds like the Navy has a problem of not being able to make some new parts. So they have to scrounge or repair if able.
But retired command staff need to get paid.
Algorithmic engagement comment.
Did the Navy even ask the guys actually doing the job what they thought? Never mind I guess I just had a crazy idea bounce loose in my head.
Truly, Admirals listen only to Congress Cretins.
Just order 40 new C-2Bs from NG
@@DonWan47 So put it back into production. I don’t think that’s something that’s beyond the capability of NG.
You're talking years to stand up a whole new production line from scratch, Grumman is not going to do that for just a few dozen one time orders, not without a truly gigantic pile of money thrown at them.
@@DonWan47 Is it? Why? It's derived from the E-2 which is still in production.
@@philmccracken2351 They did it for the 58 airframes built in the past. It's based on a plane that's currently in production so not really "from scratch".
@@philmccracken2351 Wiuld it be a whole new production line tho? First production started in 1964. Another batch was produced in 1984. They’ve done this before. Again, it’s based on an a/c that’s still in production.
it seems the military industrial complex can't help itself ordering stuff that don't work like it supposed to. Littoral Combat ships, The KC-46 tanker program, Zumwalt destroyers, Ospreys replacing the C-2. Well, the Ospreys as a whole. The Marine One helicopter program. I can go on. I've even heard the Constellation class frigates are in trouble. I thought these people were smart. What else could go wrong?
Wasn't there a COD Mission requirement to carry F-35 Replacement engines? Thought I read that somewhere. If so, maybe that was a driver to go to the Osprey. Don't know, not a flyer.
Yep, Gonky mentioned that they’re needed for the F-35 engines, the C-2 doesn’t have the capacity.
@@victorf5404 missed that part
@@boblynch28024:33
E-2 With cargo fuselage but built big enough to fit the F-35 engine in the cargo hold.
@@MrLM002 Even if the fuselage was modified to to physically carry the F-35 engine, is there enough engine power to accommodate that? In the Systems engineering world, even the smallest of changes can have profound consequences on design, capabilities, and cost.
Make sea chinooks
Simpler than a twin engine turboprop would be a single engine turboprop.
...Are you watching a video that does NOT INVOLVE Naval Aviation?
@@tehpw7574 if you are saying that a naval aircraft MUST have more than one engine, I invite you to go and check out F-35C and F-35B.
Y'all are giving me flashbacks to when I worked C-130 maintenance during the Clinton years. Sometimes we had half our Herks grounded cuz we couldn't afford parts.
So what happens when they finally consign the last C-2 to the desert and the Osprey has to stand down again because it’s killed some more people?
CODs carry VIPs and visitors. Everybody raise their hand who would rather fly out to the boat in a tilt rotor than trap in a C2.
Maybe they should've gone with the NASA QSRA (or something like it).
Stupid question fore sure: are the osprey pilots considered fixed wing? Or helicopter? or some new combo thing?
Tiltrotor is its own category.
@@ypw510 Right, but I'm not sure the category is so distinct though. Osprey pilots have to complete both a helo and fixed-wing course prior to training in the Osprey. Of course, I'm going off memory (which could outdated if not outright mistaken) and likely based on Naval aviation (likely USMC).
@@inelhuayocan_aci
There was an interview on the Fighter Pilot Podcast with a commander of a Navy Osprey wing. He started off in the C-2, and he discussed a bit about the transition and how they brought in fixed wing and helicopter pilots.
It's "CMV-22B Ospreys join the Fleet with "Flesh" (ep. 157)".
You guys can run ad blockers when sharing clips of other sites.
Haven't heard any serious discussion of how an updated C-2 would compare against an Osprey. With the E-3 still in production, a lot the parts are there. It seems they sunk so much money into the V-22, they can't afford for it not to work.
You mean E-2? It's not the same as the C-2, which supposedly has a bigger fuselage and a cargo loading ramp.
The idea of the V-22 was supposedly that it could midair refuel (which was never given to the C-2 other than one example) and do other stuff like an external load carried by cables. Along with the possibility that they might also do other missions that the C-2 couldn't do like ASW.
@@ypw510 yup, thanks for correction. Meant E-2. The common parts would be wings, engines, tail, and landing gear.
@@ypw510a lot of the E2 and C2 parts were similar or the same.
The V22 is unfixable and the C2 works. The problem is uneven lift cased by ground effect on only one side making the Osprey an unstable & unsafe platform by design. Should look into replacing the props on the osprey with jets to allow traditional landing and take offs while reserving the vertical option for the field when needed in combat, not routine mail runs. Would add more speed and lifting thrust. Would be like a cargo upsized version of the harrier with twin jets in turning pods instead of the turning ducts.
That isn't the issue whatsover with the V-22. The design problems have to do with specific components within the proprotor gearboxes, which is the link between the engine and the rotor system. Only so much I can say publicly, but it comes down to a one-in-a-million chance that the plane just kills you and you couldn't have really done anything about it. That's enough unmitigated risk that fleet/theater commanders aren't really willing to chance. Not for extended overwater flight.
C2 cannot operate from Amphibious assault warships. In addition to our 10? big carriers, the United States has a bunch of LHA's and LHD's that can form their own battle groups. V22's can operate from those.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that Ospreys still aren't reliable enough yet.
Amphibious assault ships operated for decades before the V-22.
They would already have their own group of Marine V-22. However, they wouldn't typically be using them for deliveries.
Then let the Amphibious Assault ships use the Ospreys first. The Navy can choose to phase out the C2s once the needs of the LHA/LHDs are seen to first.
@@deidryt9944
Those ships were using helicopters for deliveries, but obviously that runs into issues of speed and range.
The US Navy's CM-22B has specific features for deliveries and isn't really meant as a combat troop carrier. It also has the capability of transporting cargo and people from ship to ship.
Thanks!
John thanks for the support!!
Better luck next time to the Northrup Grummans congressional lobby.
S-3 Viking might have to make a comeback 🤔
Lemme knock on wood real quick, but of all the Osprey crashes, none of them have involved the Navy's CMV-22 variant specifically. Can any of y'all think of a reason the Navy has been spared so far?
I dunno. I'd think the amount of time they've been operating, plus the number and the conditions in which they're flown. I though some of the issues were with the wear of critical parts. I'd think the Marines are a lot harder on them since they'd be training for combat. I heard that one of the USAF crashes was with a special ops group.
Still - the US Navy was talking about using the Osprey for more than just COD.
first